Lense prices for micro-4/3 are higher than low-end SLR lens offerings, but lower than the next higher grade (low-end lenses are usually $300-$500 and the next step up hover around $800-$1000). Olympus Zuikos are considered to be some of the best optics out there, second only to Leica. Obviously that varies lens to lens for any given manufacturer and price/quality segment, but typically for the cost you get better sharpness across the lens with very low dispersion and distortion.

The competition in this market is the other PEN Olympus bodies, the Panasonic DMC G* series cameras (also micro-4/3), the Ricoh GXR, the Samsung NX-10 and the Leica rangefinders. Did I miss any? Actually, I would add the Canon G11, though it's not an interchangeable lens system because I think it's trying to entice the same market.

The Panasonic, Canon and Leicas are the only systems I've seen images for. The Canon is good but not SLR quality like the micro-4/3 (IMO). The Leicas are very good and extremely expensive and thus aren't really in the same market segment. The Panasonics have comparable quality. Olympus Lenses are usually considered a bit better quality, but they can be used on the Panasonic bodies anyway and vice versa. The Panasonic GF-1 is pretty compelling too.

The idea of the EPL-1 with a travel lens is exciting to me; but it brings another thought. Why not a fixed zoom as I described above.

Oly has "superzooms" like this, though I don't think they use the 4/3 system for the sensor and other bits. It probably is an obvious next step to push the system cost down and be a really compelling consumer offering. It depends a bit on how that superzoom lens can telescope, I would think.

The very long focal length lenses really require a small sensor to keep the lens size down. I'd be happy with a much more restricted focal length range for a fixed lens travel camera in exchange for the larger sensor. Perhaps the 28-200 mm equivalent of the old Canon Pro 1 fitted in a body similar to the Panasonic FZ30 or 50. I don't think of 28-200 as a superzoom, it's "only" 7.14x!

Gerald,I am no expert, but I will try to answer from what I know:1. DSLR lens 'superzooms' are usually lower than Superzooms.2. The FZ50 may have a 12x zoom, but if its wide angle is 35mm (suppose so, I am not sure!) than it means the lens is a 35-420mm lens. Now, if you have a 200mm DSLR lens, Canon will multiply its focal length by 1.6, Nikon by 1.5, and Milonta by 2. So, your lens will be equivalent to a 320mm lens for Canon, 300mm lens for Nikon and a 400mm lens for Milonta! (that one's pretty close!)3. Don't confuse the mm and X. X is the ratio of the Telephoto to the Wide angle. So, if you have a 50-100mm lens, it is 2X, and if you have a 100-200mm lens, it is still 2X, but it will take you twice as close! So, if you have a camera with a 25mm wide angle with 10X zoom and a 35mm wide angle with a 10X zoom, the Xes may be same, but the 35mm one will take you 1.4 times closer at max telephoto!Hope this helps,Jinay.

My "only" 7.14x was meant to be a facetious remark. For a high quality lens, that's a wide range.

I'm also well aware of the mechanics of focal lengths and sensor sizes.

What I was trying to get to was that the physical size requirements of a relatively fast lens matched to a larger sensor restricts focal length range for a camera that's portable and practical. I felt that a faster 28-200 mm equivalent lens for a 4/3 sensor could probably be packaged into a body about the size and weight of the FZ50. The FZ50 has an equivalent focal length of 35-420 and is f/2.8-3.7 with a 1/1.8" sensor, which has a 14 mm diagonal measurement. A lens of similar physical size should allow a 210 mm equvalent lens at f/3.7 to cover the diagonal of a 4/3 sensor. Thus, it seems possible to design a fixed lens micro 4/3 camera with a 28-210 equivalent zoom in a body about the size of the FZ50. Which I think is reasonable.

I bought one of these as a take everywhere camera. I bought the kit but am on the hunt for a faster all purpose lens. I am impressed with the picture quality and the size with the kit 14-42 lens is perfect. The lens is quite slow hence I am looking for something faster, especially as I bought this to use mostly at night/in restaurants. 10-25 f2.8 would be great (or something like that so I get ~20-50 in 35mm format).

Since getting the 20mm f/1.7, I never used the 14-42 on walkabout again. Personally, I'm not sure I could live with the relatively small aperture of the Oly 17mm, unless you do need something that bit wider.